Today part of the news is that the President does not, in fact, have recordings of his conversations with former FBI Director Comey. The President's Twitter account (in two tweets) explained:

"With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

Something is amiss here. Read the sentence again. This does not sound like the President's normal language on Twitter. It sounds, instead, like something that a lawyer writes. The giveaways are the use of the quotes around the word "tapes," and the formal phrase "any such." Lawyers say things in this way because they are more precise.

As a House committee was requesting the disclosure of any "tapes" of any such conversations, it is not surprising that the President would run his answer by the lawyers before hitting Tweet. Hopefully he'll start making that a regular habit.

I suspected Trump was bluffing with the original tapes tweet. After Comey called his bluff, the Donald called in his private attorney to extricate him with a lame suggestion POTUS was referring to NSA surveillance..of the Oval Office?

It often is the case that the official twitter account of public figures have tweets not written by the person themselves. I have seen, e.g., reference to something like "tweets with -J from me personally" or whatnot.

Some apparently have noticed tweets from a certain device is from Trump, others not from him. You saw "official sounding" tweets in the past. Such as some sort of nice sounding message tweet after a tragic event or honoring a holiday.

I wouldn't be shocked that even the red meat stuff is not always from him.

And I would be shocked if such read meat stuff by others on Trump's account were not without Trump's prior approval.

The closing of Trump's tweet:

" ... but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

doesn't answer whether anyone else made any recordings and may have them. Might there be an Alexander Butterfield equivalent in the White House? Trump has no idea? If that were the case, then Trump might have reason to be concerned with the possibility of recordings beyond his conversation with Comey. But perhaps it took Trump a couple of weeks to come up with this tweet as he might have had experts check for recording devices in key White House rooms.

Check out Stephen Sachs' "Originalism Without Text." It can be linked to directly at the Originalism Blog. It's a short paper, 12 pages of text. A few days ago Larry Solum had a post on it at his Legal theory Blog, without editorial comment except for his "Highly recommended." The article is a tad critical of Solum's views on certain basics of Solum's originalism.

Query: If there can be originalism without text, where does does that leave textualism? There are expanding theories of originalism, like our universe is ever expanding. Are these really theories or hypotheses?

Putting "tapes" in quotes is not especially lawyerly but simply reflects the reality that nobody uses physical tapes for storing information any more. The substrate of a recording would be a solid-state memory chip, a hard drive, or a CD. It's an archaic linguistic survival, like "dialling" a number.

Another off topic: I have received email notification of upcoming programs on the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th A, with a focus on a "new" Constitution resulting from the 14th A (as well as the 13th and 15th' As). These programs will revisit the failures of Reconstruction, what with Jim Cros that followed. Despite the passage of 150 years, the 14th A's interpretation/construction is not yet fully settled, including the matter of incorporation of some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Is the present Court somewhat like the Court's response to Reconstruction way back when that continued with Plessy late in the 19th century and Plessy's continuing impact until Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (Unanimous, 1954)? We might get reminders of Southern historians' revisionisms on the 100th anniversary of the 14th A.

Assuming Gerard is correct that a lawyer had a hand in Trump's tweet, did the lawyer provide wiggle room for Trump if it turns out that others connected with the White House made recordings and not Trump personally? If so, might we expect that future tweets edited by a lawyer may build in wiggle room for Trump?

Bacevich, a historian and political scientist, observes how history may be reflected over time by reflections of Mr. Everyman. It's a long essay but worth a read. We might expect more revisionism for reasons noted in my earlier comment.

If, as SPAM suspects, this was a "lawyered" tweet (as do others), how well "lawyered" was it? Were there back and forth between Trump and a lawyer? If so, that would be quite revealing. Might good lawyering have raised the question as to whether there were/are recording systems in the White House and if so whether they might have been triggered?

"With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."

This sort of thing does sound both lawyerly (e.g., who says "intercepts"? experts might, but the average person doesn't) and this is seen by taking it as a whole. The use of quotes doesn't tell us something here in a vacuum. Yes, there is a practice these days of usage of quotes, including scare quotes. Some are a bit random there.

The statement is spin too. The usage of "with all of the" is unnecessary in a vacuum but provides some spin, besides a sort of tic. It also is impersonal. We wouldn't know that Trump himself brought up the possibility of tapes. There is just this "reporting" about things, and you know, huh, it's all so curious.

The coyness and b.s. involved might be crafted by a lawyer as a matter of language but it is quite Trump-like. There is also the Republican tactic of focusing on "illegal leaking" as if that is the basic concern. Also, he has "some" idea here if he personally didn't create the tapes and doesn't know about them.

The care used to craft the text makes me concerned about the exact wording. There "are" (now), "I did not make," reference to "recordings" ("tapes" in quotes, recordings out of quotes). Trump personally (does anyone else? Bannon? etc.) "have" them. At some point, this might seem excessive, but we have seen careful usage of words to mislead over and over. Trump surely plays that game, even if at times he seems to be reckless. He is but not fully so.

I think Trump was lying when he suggested the existence of tapes -- he's done that before, and anyway pretty much every word he says is a lie. But Joe's right that this statement leaves open plenty of room for cross-examination.

Technically he didn't say there were tapes. He just said Comey should hope there weren't any. Well, Shazam! Comey's hopes are fulfilled. It's an honest day for a politician when they merely stick to saying things that aren't technically lies, rather than just going full out fib.

It was still stupid of Trump to say, for all that it wasn't technically a lie. But we all know Trump just blurts out the first thing to come to mind, too much of the time.

Personally, were I Trump I'd be wearing a wire every hour of every working day, and never mind the inevitable comparisons to Nixon. Trump could be Mother Theresa in drag and he'd still be compared to worse than Nixon, just on the unforgivable basis that he beat a Democrat in an election. At least that way he could prove it if one of his subordinates lied about what went down in a meeting.

Does this tweet suggest the lawyerly ghost of a Roy Cohn assisting Trump? Trump had publicly stated about a week ago that he would respond on the matter of the existence of any tapes. Kellyanne is a lawyer and has been a spokesperson for Trump. Perhaps she assisted Trump with editing. One thing is clear: Trump was not in any sense apologetic for earlier putting on the table whether the conversations with Comey were taped. Recall how long it took Trump to concede that Obama was born in America, failing to produce for years any evidence to the contrary despite his suggestions of such evidence; and there was no apology from Trump. Apparently politically it was no longer useful to continue with his false charge. His recent tweet suggests that politically it was no longer a benefit to continue his "tapes" charade. The first two clauses of the tweet are weasel efforts to save face.

Let's assume Trump's advisors convinced Trump to have a lawyer review what he wished to tweet. Presumably Trump would want his millions of followers on Twitter to see language that appears Trump authentic. If that were the case, I would wonder what Trump's draft looked like to see how the lawyer might have edited. But Trump might not have liked the edit and he reedited for the lawyer's review. And then how did the lawyer react ... on and on.

But imagine if a reasonable objective lawyer were called in. I can imagine a discussion between them as to the basic message that Trump wanted to get across. Such a reasonable objective lawyer might have then drafted a tweet based upon that discussion for Trump to review. Trump might have thought that the draft was not in Trump's authentic voice and edited the draft to suit his purposes.

We don't know and may never know about what went into this tweet. Perhaps the weasel clauses were necessary to provide cover for Trump if later on it turns out that there were recordings of conversations between Trump and Comey. Perhaps there were known unknowns or unknown unknowns.

Technically he didn't say there were tapes. He just said Comey should hope there weren't any. Well, Shazam! Comey's hopes are fulfilled. It's an honest day for a politician when they merely stick to saying things that aren't technically lies, rather than just going full out fib.

Yes. He was bullshitting, which he does. It isn't just he often says the first thing out of his head. He has been bullshitting for decades. People have given examples of him using this technique to fraudulently hint something as a pressure device.

The gratutious shot at politicians is a given for some & Trump is supposed to be different -- e.g., we have to give him something of a pass because he doesn't know the lingo or something. Knowing the basics should be a floor for certain jobs but regardless the average politician is Jim Carey in "Liar Liar" after he had to tell the truth all the time as compared to Trump. This is part of why so many people, across the political spectrum, was and continue to be so concerned about Trump.

Why so many Republicans over and over again are concerned is strange if this is just because he beat a Democrat in an election. But, as a matter of strategy, no, I don't him always wearing a wire -- given the stuff repeatedly will be either leaked or it will get out there somehow -- would be a good idea. At least, as a strategy for his personal success.

"People have given examples of him using this technique to fraudulently hint something as a pressure device."

Interesting point here: What can he pressure Comey to do, in response to the threat that there may be tapes of the conversation?

The only thing that threat pressures Comey to do is tell the truth, right? Unless maybe Comey said something during that conversation that would damage him if it came out... In which case he must not be such a straight shooter after all, no?

In fact, we know by now that the FBI is seriously politicized, perhaps hopelessly so. "No target in mind.", we're told. Just a list of Republicans in his pocket that included Scalise. He may have just stumbled upon the ball field that morning, after taking surveillance photos of it after a news report about the Congressional baseball practice there.

The FBI takes us all for fools, or simply doesn't care if we know they're BSing us. But, either way, they're no straight shooters anymore, who knows how long it's been since they were.

I thought Trump's position was that Comey lied. Now he's claiming that his threat forced Comey to tell the truth. Can't see how that helps Trump.

As for the FBI, citing an event that occurred after Comey left is not evidence of politicization when Comey was there so your logic is off. Nevertheless, the FBI was politicized under J. Edgar Hoover. It's just "politicized" to lean right. That makes the current investigation an a fortiori case -- even a right-leaning FBI couldn't ignore the evidence against the Trump regime.

Is it being suggested that former FBI Director Comey in his Senate Intel Committee testimony would say anything different than was contained in his contemporaneous memos but for Trump's current claim of keeping Comey honest? I understand those memos were in place prior to the time of Trump's tweet about possible "tapes." SPAM takes a long leap on Trump's bluff working. Comey, while serving as Director, complied with FBI policy not to publicly comment on whether or not a person was being investigated; but after being fired and under oath, he was no longer so obliged.

Trump seems not aware that the memory is the second thing to go, as evidenced by Trump's forgetting his Forgotten voter base and focusing on Wall Street populism with his comments on not wanting the poor to run the government - "just vote for me and support me."

"People have given examples of him using this technique to fraudulently hint something as a pressure device."

Yes. A pressure device. Broad language. Not just on Comey himself. The implication was as Mark Field noted is that Comey was lying. This is a pressure tactic; even if you honestly speak, you are in effect being called a liar. Powerful people, especially they will do so in a blatantly b.s. way without shame, making such an allegation is dangerous for people. It's pressure.

Maybe, someone else hears this is worried too. This includes those who aren't lying, but maybe worries s/he will say one thing or something that is a bit off. Tapes will be used as a gotcha, very well overblown, but still with bite. Maybe, it is best not to testify at all. Or be overly careful.

Reference to "straight shooter." Who knows what Trump thinks he has or what he is implying he has. The idea is he has nothing, but let's say maybe something embarrassing pops up. What? Something really damning that changes Comey's overall testimony? Not necessary. See also how the innocent take the Fifth.

Brett's final bit of spin is partially answered by Mark Field. It is not news that investigatory bodies of all types are political in some sense. The FBI or a local police department didn't suddenly become political now that Trump is involved.

As usual, I wouldn't take his usage of articles at face value. The list is referenced in the article:

Hodgkinson had a piece of paper with the names of six members of Congress written on it, Slater said, but the note lacked any further context and there was no evidence from his computer, phone or other belongings that indicated he planned to target those officials. Slater declined to name the officials whose names were on the note or say whether they were Republicans or Democrats or were at the baseball practice.

How they are trying to play us like fools is unclear. The list was cited. The article notes:

they said they had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country.

It is normal practice for investigatory spokespersons, especially right after the event, to be careful with their words. But, somehow, this is used to help Trump specifically. Straight shooting indeed.

addressed? Any commenter on this thread? The FBI? Perhaps Brett with his own 2nd A arsenal has insights that others may not have. But this is Brett attempting a Trump-like diversionary tactic from the theme of the twit's twitting.

Not a diversionary tactic, I'm pointing out that the whole FBI, not just Comey, appears to be highly politicized. That sort of thing can't happen overnight, it wasn't just a consequence of anything Trump did. It's been years, perhaps decades in the making.

Comey deserves no presumption that he is a straight shooter, based on either FBI culture or his own behavior/testimony. He's a partisan, as much as Trump is.

Trump's history as cited remains. It not just being about Democrats upset that a Republican won remains.

Investigatory institutions somehow being political and being careful especially early on in releasing information is standard stuff. So is some things being unclear or mistakes possibly being made. Nothing special there either. This remains too.

The AP article has "no target" in the headline but that isn't a direct quote from the spokesperson cited. The list Brett references was mentioned. The article also summarizes: "they said they had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why, beyond his animus toward President Donald Trump and the Republicans he felt were ruining the country."

There is not some attempt here to cloud that the guy appears to be motivated somehow by ideological belief, just as various right wing attackers were as referenced by Mr. W. in a previous thread. That also has been the general assumption in reporting and commentary. The FBI carefully not officially making statements somehow is made out by Brett by his subjective biases as some sort of conspiracy, by the title of that second linked piece somehow "the left" trying to trick us again.

Not a diversionary tactic, I'm pointing out that the whole FBI, not just Comey, appears to be highly politicized. That sort of thing can't happen overnight, it wasn't just a consequence of anything Trump did. It's been years, perhaps decades in the making.

Mark Field cited J. Edgar Hoover. So, yes. But, there is nothing really special about this as a general concept for investigatory agencies. It's like Brett citing things about how the Constitution as if they are relatively recent developments but that was always there. But, yes, it sort of is a diversionary tactic in that is being used to try to divert attention as if it is somehow particularly notable.

Comey deserves no presumption that he is a straight shooter, based on either FBI culture or his own behavior/testimony. He's a partisan, as much as Trump is.

His biases were repeatedly addressed and need to be factored in but Brett has to go an extra level -- he has to be "as much as Trump." No. The general judgment, including by those who politically are Republican and willing to ally with Trump for policy reasons, is that on "straight shooter" levels, we can trust Comey more than Trump.

Speaking of politicizing the FBE, consider the role of Rudy Giuliani for the Trump campaign regarding his FBI sources. Also, consider that Rudy did not get a spot in Trump's cabinet or as Director of the FBI. Then consider the Palmer Report at:

Has Flack looked into the timeline of FBI statements on the shootings? And by Flack's standards it was Republican Timothy McVeigh who murdered many civilians, including children in the bombed buildings day care facility.

Mr. W may take note and list the right-wing, aka Republican, terrorists from an earlier thread. There seem to be more right-wing, aka Republican, 2nd A absolutists/revolutionaries than Democrats.

As for national security, apparently Flack thinks the Russia actions in the 2016 campaign are fake news.

Then Flack closes with:

"The entire bureaucracy is without a doubt corrupt."

Keep in mind the Executive is controlled by Republicans as well as both houses of Congress; and the Court is back to conservative control as a result of Republican President Trump and the Republican controlled Senate. Could it be that Flack was right in his repetitive claims during the campaign that Trump was a fascist? Is Flack suggesting that Trump's leadership of the Republican Party is corrupt? Or has it been like this since the demise of The Gilded Age of the late 19th century, when Flack thought America was great?